Karnataka Court November 2006 Judgments

Parminder Singh S/O Shrimava Singh Vs. State of Karnataka by H.A.L. Po ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(2)KarLJ7; 2007(2)KCCR1409; 2007(2)AIRKarR256(DB)

1. This appeal is by the sole accused being aggrieved of the judgment in SC No. 45/2002 on the file of the IV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore City dated 03.01.2003 convicting him for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing Mm to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.2. The case of the prosecution in brief are as follows:The deceased Kamal Monga a native of Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, had taken admission in M.V.J. College of Engineering, Whitefield, Bangalore, So also the accused Parminder Singh the native of Malikpur, Punjab State had also taken admission in M.V.J. College of Engineering, Whitefield, Bangalore. Both were studying in Final year B.E. and were residing in premises bearing No. 120/ 21, Ist Cross, Anandanagara, Marathahalli, Bangalore having taken it on rental basis from PW2 -Smt. Surinder Kaur. The accused Parminder Singh and the deceased Kam...

Smt. D. Vasantha Kamala W/O Sri V. Bhasker Vs. State of Karnataka by I ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(4)KarLJ78; 2007(1)AIRKarR233

ORDERAnand Byrareddy, J.1. The facts of the case are: The fourth respondent society is said to be managing two Grant-in-Aid Institutions, namely Smt. Gangamma Hombegowda Girls' High School and Hombegowda Boys' High School. The petitioner had joined the services of the fourth respondent in the year 1970 as an Assistant Teacher at Hombegowda Girls' High School. It is the petitioner's case that in accordance with the rules made by the State Government, when more than one High School is managed by a single entity, a common seniority list has to be maintained and the two High Schools are to be treated as one for the purpose of seniority and promotions. The fourth respondent has published a seniority list of teachers working in the schools under its Management. The petitioner, who belongs to the General Merit category, is found at Serial No. 4 in the seniority list. The petitioner would state that in accordance with the amendment to the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment Rules) 19...

Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chandrashekara and ...

Court: Karnataka

V. Jagannathan, J.1. This appeal by the insurance company is directed against the order passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Bijapur awarding a sum of Rs. 58,565 to respondent-claimant by putting the liability on the appellant insurance company to pay the said compensation. The main grievance of appellant is that the claimant had played fraud on the court by suppressing the real fact and, therefore, only on the sole ground of fraud, the order of the Commissioner is liable to be set aside.2. Elaborating the submissions in this regard, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant took up the stand before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation that he was a coolie and that he sustained injuries in the accident which took place on 3.1.1998. Following the injury sustained in the accident the claimant could not carry on his coolie work. Based on the evidence let in by the parties, the Commissioner awarded the compensation in the above sum to the claimant.3. ...

Smt. Savithri W/O Vasu Vs. Sri Eshwara (Since Decd by Lrs. Smt. Lalith ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(1)KCCR2007(1)AIRKarR387; AIR2007NOC368.

V. Jagannathan, J.1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.2. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition filed Under Order 9 R 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (sic) requesting the Trial Court to set aside the order of dismissal passed in O.S.No. 2957/1984 and to restore the suit to its original position.3. The learned Counsel Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao for the appellant, submitted that the Trial Court dismissed the petition mainly on the ground that the petition ought to have been filed Under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking setting aside the abatement order passed and since the appellant filed the petition Under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Trial Court observed that the petition is misconceived and the second reason given by the Trial Court is that as the suit was dismissed has having became abated, the course open to the appellant was to file a petition Under Order 22 Rule 9 of the civil Procedure code and not under Order 9 Rule 9...

Dr S.R. Anil Kumar S/O Raj Rayan Vs. the State of Karnataka, Rep. by I ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2007(1)KarLJ373

ORDERN.K. Patil, J.1. The petitioner, assailing the correctness of the order dated 13th September 2001 bearing No. AEE(E)/Ch.Puram/5114-16 passed by third respondent vide Annexure G and demand notice dated 16th October 2001 bearing No. AEE(E)/Ch.Puram/5795-98 vide Annexure G1, has presented the instant writ petition.2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner is the owner of the 'Village Health Club' formed in Sy. No. 106, Nanjangud Road, Mysore. Petitioner has filed the necessary application seeking electricity supply to his installation. Accordingly, the second respondent has serviced the installation of the premises of the petitioner through the Meter bearing No. A-14535 and connected a load of 28.4 KW to the installation of the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner has filed one more application for sanction and connection of additional load of 45 KW vide his application dated 14th September 1995. The said request of the petitioner was also cons...

The State of Karnataka by the Secretary to Government, Finance Departm ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: (2007)8VST347(Karn)

ORDER1. These petitions are filed by the State of Karnataka. Respondents- Assessees filed appeals under Section 22(1) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (for short 'The KST Act' and under Section 14(1) of the Karnataka Tax on Entry of Goods Act ( for short 'The Entry Tax Act').2. Section 22(3) of the KST Act would provide for proof of payment of one and a half of tax or other amount disputed and also a fee equal to two percent of the amount of assessment objected to for the purpose of maintaining an appeal. Section 14(3) of the Entry Tax Act would also provide for proof of payment of one and a half of tax or other amount disputed and also a fee equal to two percent of the amount of assessment objected to for the purpose of maintenance of an appeal.3. Assessees filed return in all these cases prior to amendment dtd 1-8-2004. Appeals were filed subsequent to 1-8-2004 before the Karnataka appellate Tribunal. The question was as to whether these appeals require pre-deposit in terms of the amen...

M.P. Chinnappa Retired Judge High Court of Karnataka, Vs. the Accounta ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2006KAR97; 2007(2)KarLJ103

ORDERR. Gururajan, J.1. Three former judges of this Court are seeking a writ of declaration declaring that the Karnataka Civil Service Rules read with Government Order No. FD(spl) 1 Pet 99, Bangalore dtd 5-2-1999 (Annexure-G) in so far as it limits the gratuity payable to the petitioners to Rs. 2,50,000/- as unconstitutional and Illegal. They seek for a direction for a maximum gratuity of Rs. 3,50,000/- in the case on hand. All the three petitioners before elevation have worked as District and Sessions Judges in various place. They were initially elevated as Additional Judges of this Court and thereafter they were made permanent in terns of the averments made in the writ petition. All the three judges have attained the age of superannuation and now they have retired from the office as a Judge of this Court, while fixing the pension, the respondents have chosen to take into consideration the maximum ceiling of Rs. 2,50,000/- in respect of gratuity in terms of the Government Order dtd 15...

The State of Karnataka by Its Secretary, Home Department, Vs. Sri D.R. ...

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007KAR221

Cyriac Joseph, C.J. 1. This writ petition is filed against the order dated 03.02.2006 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No. 2650 of 2005. The petitioners are respondents-1 to 3 in the application which was filed by the 1st respondent herein.2. The applicant before the Tribunal had applied for the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Civil) in the General Merit (Rural) and General Merit (Kannada Medium) categories. When his name was not included in the select list, he filed the Application before the Tribunal praying to quash the selection of respondents-4 to 6 in the Application and for a direction to respondents-1 to 3 to consider his application for selection to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Civil) either under General Merit (Rural) or Category 3A (Rural Quota). The Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to be considered under General Merit (Rural) and that he was wrongly found ineligible to be considered under General Merit (Rural), Accordingly, the...

A.N. Krishna Murthy Vs. S.K. Sukumar

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: ILR2007(1)Kar910; 2007(1)KCCR201; 2007(2)KCCR1117; 2007(1)AIRKarR244; AIR2007Kant58; 2007(4)CivilLJ500

ORDERK.L. Manjunath, J.1. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S. No. 7940/91 before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore. The respondent is the plaintiff. In the suit, the Court directed both the parties to file the affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief simultaneously. The defendant filed an application under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code seeking permission of the Court to cross examine PW. 1 and after completion of the evidence of the plaintiff to file the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of the defendant after closure of the plaintiffs side. The Trial Court has rejected the application on 4-1-2003 by holding that in view of Order 18 Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code both the plaintiff and defendant have to file the affidavits of evidence simultaneously and thereafter the Court has to take up the matter for cross-examination of the plaintiff and his witnesses and the defendant and his witnesses respectively. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.2. I have h...

Pvr Limited a Company Incorporated Under the Provisions of the Compani ...

Court: Karnataka

1. This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 15237/2005(C) wherein he has declined to grant the relief of a writ of certiorari to quash the order impugned dt.2/4/2005 and notice dt. 28/5/2005 by recording reasons with observation that the respondents 1 & 2 are clothed with power to issue the impugned directions and also refused to issue a writ of mandamus as prayed by the Company, urging various legal contentions. Further the appellant has prayed to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and to quash the impugned order and notice by allowing this writ appeal.2. Certain relevant brief facts are stated in this Judgment for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged in this case and to answer the same.The appellant is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act 1956, hereinafter called 'the Company' in short, carrying on with a commercial undertaking business of exhibiting movies at various ...